Jeff Goldblum

Despite having starred in some of the biggest blockbuster films of all time, actor Jeff Goldblum had often opted to portray offbeat characters in limited release indies. After breaking in as a drug-ad...
Read More...

S3E13: Glee may purport to be all roses and heart-shaped glitter, but things aren’t so shiny when you look up close. Some of those pieces of heart-shaped glitter are really cute and festive and – dare I say it – entertaining, but when the fun is over and the confetti settles, there’s just this big pile of crumpled, shiny paper that no one has the energy to clean up. Despite Brian Stokes Mitchell’s and Jeff Goldblum’s best and valiant attempts, the return of a newly healthy Blaine, and the tendency I have to love everything that comes draped in pink and read hearts, this episode helped a once great show continue its downward spiral.
“And now, commence the teenage love-making.” –Hiram Berry
Rachel's dads surprise Rachel and her betrothed in the auditorium with a piano – now we know where Rachel gets it from. Both dads feign happiness for Rachel and Finn’s impending marriage – but guess what? They’re not happy, because they're good parents even though they've been completely absent for two years.
First, Finn and Rachel make their happy announcement to the glee club and everyone quickly chooses sides – of course Quinn is on the anti-marriage side because she’s gone all independent woman since she came back from the dark side. Somehow, Rachel has gone from that terror shot when she realized she’d committed to Finn before she got her NYADA letter to blushing bride-to-be without so much as a hop, skip and a jump. Finn’s parents and Rachel’s parents have a little plan to make them realize their mistake: a big ol’ family Valentine’s dinner.
At the end of this awkward love fest, saved only by Jeff Goldblum’s always classic delivery of even the worst lines, both sets of parents drop the bomb: the blissful cohabitation starts now. Finn’s mom even brought him his jammies. But the parents’ brilliant plan backfires when Finn and Rachel recover from their first fight over her ridiculous bedtime regimen with even more determination to stay together. In fact, they’ve moved the wedding date up to the week after Nationals – you know, just in time for the season finale. Thankfully, we’re left there, but it seems this is the ridiculous plot that just won’t die. It’s so obvious that they’re nuts, but it’s almost like the writers believe their audience is torn. Hey guys, we’re not.
”When it comes to love, I don’t know who I am.” -Mercedes
Next, we have the most engaging couple on the whole show: Sam and Mercedes. Unfortunately, they suffered a contrived fate this week. Though there’s absolutely no reason they two of them would stop making googly eyes at each other, Mercedes finds an illogical loophole. Mercedes finally told Shane that she kissed Sam, and they promptly broke up. This should mean the course is clear for Samcedes, right? Wrong. Mercedes decides that she can’t be trusted to be in any relationship. Yes, because an adorable boy who’s been ardently pursuing you sang you a romantic song and then kissed you and you’re supposed to just smack him? Well, yes, of course, you’re not supposed to give in, but this is high school and let’s be honest: most high school girls would be hard pressed to make a better decision.
And this is where that awkwardly-timed rendition of “I Will Always Love You.” By no fault of the writers, Amber Riley, or the show itself, this performance was just a little hard to watch. Glee’s style is inherently goofy and garish, and normally using such a classic, emotional song would be just another example of the show’s hyperbolic use of music. But in light of Whitney Houston’s passing, it seems just a bit disrespectful. Of course, I reiterate: there’s no way the show could have prevented this because they filmed it long before the real-life tragedy struck.
But, it does the trick for Sam and Mercedes. Sam is furious; he obviously agrees Mercedes' reasoning is seriously flawed. They’re officially on the outs, which is conveniently awkward because they just happen to be in the four-member Christian club together. For some reason, this club also sings (oh wait, Glee Project winner Samuel Larson needed a place to sing at McKinley; that’s why), which leads to Quinn, Mercedes, Sam, and Larson’s uber-Christian hippie Joseph into singing songs about love together while Sam and Mercedes look miserable next to each other. We did not earn this form of television torture, writers. Just let them have at least some sort of romantic progress. PLEASE.
"All I want to do is be able to kiss my girlfriend, but no one can see that because there’s such an insane double standard at this school.” -Santana
And Joseph the religious zealot and hippie (is that even a thing?) intertwines his unnecessary plot into another storyline: that of prejudice against Santana and Brittany for their Lesbianism. Figgins gets a complaint because the two of them share a peck in the hallway – even though this is a school that once hosted a kissing booth for profit in the middle of the hallway – and Figgins decides he can’t allow the couple to display their affection in the halls.
This issue of inequality is handled fairly well, except that we never find out who issued the complaint. Instead, we simply see Santana take her anger out on the new guy: super Christian Joseph. Obviously, he was the one who complained, right? To test the theory, Santana orders a Valentine’s song gram from the Christian club and we watch Joseph sit motionless without agreeing to sing the song for a lesbian couple. In the end, he agrees to do it and we’re left to assume that he’s probably the guy who complained to the principal. It’s a little obtuse to let the new very religious guy take the blame for such a prejudice claim – sure he sang the song at the end and said he accepted Santana, but this show is all about how making assumptions is detrimental. Shouldn’t they have shown us that to assume the Christian kid did it is wrong? Or, if he did do it, have him admit it. This isn’t a series that thrives on subtlety and open-ended storylines; it can’t make that shift just once and expect it to fit within in the story.
"You think you love me?” –Kurt
All this week and last week, Kurt has been missing his sweetheart, Blaine, who is still laid up after the impossible rock salt slushie incident. Yet, somehow, Blaine is sending Valentines signed “secret admirer” from his state of bed rest. At least that’s what Kurt assumes. Well, there were two ways this could go. (Okay, there’s a third and it involves a new character, but I have faith that the writers wouldn’t add two unnecessary characters in one episode.) Option one is that the secret admirer is Sebastian, trying another hair-brained scheme to come between the happy duo. Option two is better, but still a little over the top: it’s Karovsky. It turns out to be option two, and Karovsky takes off his gorilla mask – because if there’s anything that whips Kurt into a frenzy, it’s linebackers dresses as gorillas – and admits that he thinks he’s in love with Kurt. He rattles off the list of reasons tracing back to the night at Scandals, the bullying, and the hate kiss. There’s just one issue: he hasn’t come out at his new school. And even though Sugar Shack nee Breadstix is hosting a private event, one of the football players from Karovsky’s new school over hears and this point of contention will likely come back into play at an arbitrary moment during the remainder of the season.
”No single people allowed. They’re sad and boring…and they don’t exist in my world.” –Sugar
And this is where I draw the line. How. Why. How. WHY. Sweet, sweet Rory and sweet, sweet Artie are both lovesick for one Sugar Motta. This is prefaced by Schue announcing they’re short on the regionals budget and Sugar’s response is waving a pile of cash in his face before announcing that everyone has to come to her party at Breadstix, which she’s forced her dad to rename Sugar Shack, after her. Sure, she gets everyone Valentine’s day presents, but this is the girl who, a few weeks ago turned Artie down because he was disabled and she feared what people would think. Now, she’s letting Artie and Rory shower her with gifts – including a real, live puppy – and finally serenade her to win her over. Artie chooses “Let Me Love You,” which was pretty sweet and it seems to win the brat over. But Rory pulls out the big guns: he’s being deported back to Ireland at the end of the year (is that how deportation works? Finish your schoolwork first, young laddie?). Later, it seems that Rory made the whole thing up to win over Sugar because she asks him about it and he forgets about it for a second. Now, there’s a teenage decision: lie to make something happen for Valentine’s Day, Feb. 15 consequences be damned.
We end the episode with the glorious, welcome, luminescent return of Blaine (can you tell we need him around here?) singing “Love Shack” with a little help from Kurt and some New Directions song birds. As usual, Glee can deliver a great show, so the song is a fantastic, romantic, upbeat production that lulls us into complacency. The plot may not make sense. It may make you question whether or not you’re reading a 15 year-old girl’s dream journal at times. But man, can these kids sing and dance.
What did you think of the episode? Were you disappointed at seeing so little of Jeff Goldblum? Do you think Finn and Rachel are nuts? Do you think Joseph is a weak character? Let me know in the comments or get at me on Twitter @KelseaStahler.

The actor was an awkward school kid who struggled with the opposite sex and decided to give himself a headstart in carnal knowledge by visiting a brothel in his native Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
But after stealing $10 (£6.25) from his dad, walking into the city and locating the red light district friends had raved about, he couldn't go through with the sex act.
Appearing on Monday's (13Feb12) Jimmy Kimmel Live! in America, Goldblum recalled, "We didn't get allowances so I went into my dad's wallet and got, I think, $10 - I thought that would suffice... and then I walked (to this place) after dark with this money in my pocket.
"Sure enough, where I'd heard that there were these places... there was a kind of an alley and a bunch of doorways and it was kind of dark with red lighting... and there was a girl or two hanging out.
"I proceeded to go into one of them and it was kinda dark inside and there were some girls sitting around the living room."
The actor was welcomed by the madam and given the pick of her girls. He picked one and she led him towards a bedroom at the end of a hall.
He added, "Halfway down the hallway, I said, 'Wait a minute, what time is it....? I'm so sorry, I forgot I have to do something. I'll be back...' I just chickened out."
But, in hindsight, The Fly star is glad he didn't lose his virginity to a hooker: "It probably would have scarred me. It probably wouldn't have gone well."

"I had this crush on this girl from, like, fifth to 10th grade... and I would ride my bike and just wait outside her house and just look at her house. It was like stalking. I would just wait and see if she would appear, and at night... I would say secret things that I daren't have said out loud to anybody. (To my pillow)... I would say, 'Stephanie, I love you'." Actor Jeff Goldblum on his first love.

The world seems to be very confused about who Nicholas Cage actually is. He stopped by Late Night with Jimmy Fallon to promote his new movie, Ghostrider: Spirit of Vengeance, but the conversation quickly turned to his disparate representations in the media. From Andy Samberg's hyperbolic impression on SNL, to a French wax figure, to the fact that some folks are convinced he's a vampire (he's not, for the record), to the use of his photo as a representation of Serbian biology, the world just doesn't seem to understand good ol' Nic Cage.
Reese Witherspoon is one of those people who could talk to you about organizing 15 pairs of pastel pink socks for three hours, and you'd still hang on every word. She's just that lovable. So, when she went on the Late Show with David Letterman to promote This Means War and chatted about her cute little kids and the fact that her mother calls her up to ask her about terms like D-bag, we listened and giggled along - even if the story is a little plain.
Jeff Goldblum is a real actor. At least that's what Jimmy Kimmel surmises from the fact that the actor is starring in a play in Los Angeles. He certainly didn't get that notion from the fact that Goldblum will appear on tonight's episode of Glee as Rachel Berry's dad. That being said, his presence is probably the most enticing thing about tonight's episode.

"This is definitely going to be the best day ever... Getting ready to shoot my first scene with my two dads! So excited to work with the amazing Jeff Goldblum and my old friend Mr. Brian Stokes Mitchell!!" Glee actress Lea Michele is thrilled to have the two actors star as her gay fathers on the hit TV show.

The Jurassic Park star is to follow in the footsteps of Gywneth Paltrow, John Stamos, Neil Patrick Harris and Olivia Newton-John, who have all previously appeared in episodes of the high school comedy series.
Goldblum is set to play one of Lea Michele's character's gay fathers, alongside Brian Stokes Mitchell, who will play her other dad.
Sir Elton John was previously linked to one of the roles but was unable to sign up because of his touring schedule.

The latest episode of Glee may have been a giant slap in the face to those of us who stayed faithful to the show through its ups and downs, but it seems the producers are getting something right. They just cast Rachel Berry's (Lea Michele) two gay dads, and while I always hoped to see Taye Diggs and Hugh Jackman nab the roles (Diggs especially since his real life wife plays Rachel's birth mother), the series has landed on two well-chosen actors. Jeff Goldblum and Broadway legend Brian Stokes Mitchell will be in the stands watching Rachel graduation from McKinley this year as Hiram and LeRoy Berry.
The couple will crop up first on the Valentine's Day episode, on Feb. 14, where they will sing a duet. Though we all know Mitchell as a Broadway star, what with his numerous Tony nominations and one very big win for Kiss Me Kate in 2000, Goldblum is actually pretty musically inclined as well. He's a jazz pianist and he got his big break on Broadway in Two Gentleman in Verona in 1971. So don't worry, Berry-fans. Rachel's papas aren't necessarily played by the actors we'd all chosen in our heads, but they are certainly up to the task and they've got stage credits to boot.
What do you think of the actors chosen to play Rachel's dads? Are they all wrong? Maybe just alright?
Source: TVLine

I've made a bold claim in general conversation and I'll make it again here: Viggo Mortensen (the LOTR trilogy, Eastern Promises) is one of the greatest actors we have working today. He's a chameleon—a committed performer who can slip into any role seamlessly while never failing to make exciting and unexpected choices. After speaking to him at length for his new movie A Dangerous Method, in which the actor inhabits the role of Sigmund Freud opposite Michael Fassbender and Keira Knightley, I also have another bold claim: Viggo Mortensen is one of the nicest actors we have working today.
Read on to find out more about the actor's third collaboration with director David Cronenberg, preparing for a detail-heavy dramatic experience, earning his second Golden Globe nomination, and even a little on the 10th anniversary of The Lord of the Rings:
You’re currently in Spain performing a play right now. At the tail-end of the run?
Viggo Mortensen:Yeah. Well, actually, just finished Sunday. Purgatorio is a really challenging text. It’s like an hour and forty-five minutes, more or less. Two characters on stage the whole time. No break.
A physically demanding role for you.
VM: Yeah. Just having that much dialogue. Plus, I hadn’t done theater for over twenty years. I actually—during rehearsals—was asking myself what the hell I was thinking. I could have picked a one-scene part in a play, just to get my feet wet again. But it was a challenge. It was worth it. It was a good script. Challenging. I think I learned more doing that, these past few months, than I have the last ten or fifteen years making movies.
Wow.
VM: In some ways. I mean, obviously not about cameras and technical things. They’re different sorts of challenges. I guess this year, having lots of dialogue in both David Cronenberg’s movie—more than I usually get as an actor in the movies—and then this play, it was just getting used to working with that.
That's an interesting connection to A Dangerous Method. This movie is, in part, based on a play, and like you said, it’s a very talky movie. Was your interest in the part, the movie, rooted in a desire to dive into the theatrics? Something more dialogue-driven?
VM: I suppose. The dialogue’s one way to get comfortable with playing Sigmund Freud, which, if you had asked me a couple years ago, I’d have said, “You’re crazy. It’s not a part for me.” Probably. Even if it was interesting to me. If another director other than David had asked me, I might not have taken the plunge.
Why is that?
VM: We’ve done two movies before. We get along really well. We’re good friends.
Why did you think Sigmund Freud wasn’t a part for you?
VM: Well, just physically, to start with. My idea of what he looked like and seemed like…I don’t know. It was never a character I had imagined playing. Once I started getting used to the idea by doing lots of research, and finding out more about him—it wasn’t just that he spoke a lot, but the way in which he spoke. Ironic tone, often. The fact that he was an entertaining conversationalist. An intelligent one, a generous one. He had a big appetite for life. All of those things guided me in terms of putting together the character. And then, as I said, just the fact of dealing with that much dialogue was a good challenge. Once I got used to it, I really enjoyed it. It probably helped me, in some way, be prepared for the play. A little bit.
I spoke to David about making the movie and working with you again. He mentioned that there was a lengthy email chain between you and him about Freud’s cigars.
VM: [Laughs] Yeah. I mean, that was just the tip of the iceberg.
That’s what I’m curious about. It sounds like you’re a research-heavy guy. Is that where your characters begin for you?
VM: They always differ. It’s sort of like what any kid does. It’s just a little more sophisticated, a little more layered, but it’s the same idea: if you’re a little kid and you decide to make believe and you’re playing some character, most kids get right into it. Even if it seems very simple to an adult, to them it’s very complex. And they’re leaving no stone unturned. The way they move, the way they talk. If they look menacing, or if they’re scared, or if they’re a princess. Or whatever it is they’re doing. Cowboys, Indians. As a child, you don’t have to be told, ‘No, I don’t believe what you’re doing. You have to believe it yourself or the audience won’t believe it,’ etcetera. They totally believe it. They just do it naturally. And I think the actor needs to find a way to have that same childish sense of play. At least, that’s what works for me.
But a way to get there is to do the make-believe part, the construction of it, as much as possible. And just enjoy it, too. You learn things easier when you’re enjoying the subject. So, if I take on a part because there’s something about it that interests me, or, perhaps, as often happens, frightens me—and what frightens me is, I think what frightens most people: what we don’t know. More often than not, what we’re scared of is something we don’t know about. Ignorance causes fear, causes superstition, all kinds of things. So, those are the things I tend to gravitate towards because you’re going to learn something new. I enjoy that for the research, whether it’s with David or any other director. For any character, it starts with a question. I basically ask myself, 'what happened from the moment this character was born until page one of the script?' That can be an extensive job finding that out. And fun!
With Freud, obviously, it was easier because there is a lot of material about him. Not just his work. I had to find out, what did people think of him? What did he sound like when he talked? What kind of voice did he have? How did he move? What were his appetites, his interests? Other than about science and psychoanalysis, what did he read? And I shared that with David. The cigars were just one thing. I don’t know how many dozens of emails…thirty emails, more. Just to get it right. It was fun. Fortunately, he enjoys it just like I do. He’s like a kindred spirit in a way. Almost like a like-minded actor, I would say.
Is that why you continue to collaborate with David? Are you guys just on the same wavelength? What are his unique qualities as a director?
VM: I think so. We share a similar sense of humor, sense of curiosity about the world. I guess a sense—not in a panicky way—that life is short, and to get the most out of each day. That sort of attitude.
I think also, the fact that he seems to like actors, which is not what I’ve seen from a lot of…some directors seem, at the very least, quite a few directors seem to, at least, be very uncomfortable around actors. Don’t know how to deal with them. Even find them to be a bit of a nuisance and can’t wait to get in the editing room. They’re just tools, just like the cameras are, and crew members, to them. But directors like David are confident in their abilities, secure as people, about their own…sense of self-worth. He’s open to suggestion, he likes to collaborate with people. And he knows exactly what to do. He’s pretty resolute in getting there, and getting the result he needs. But he’s easy to work with. He’s fun. I enjoy the process of making a movie, because you don’t know what’s going to happen. You don’t know how it’s going to turn out, and you certainly don’t know how it’s going to be received.
With David, and with others, I’ve made movies that I thought were well-worth seeing, but because of bad luck with distribution, or what-have-you, they didn’t get out there. People eventually saw them, but on DVD or something, and then later said, ‘Oh, what a good movie! What happened to that?’ You’ve got to enjoy what is happening at the time. If you can do that, that’s a big step. And with him, I know that the set is going to be screaming-free, unless it’s the characters doing it, and that people are going to have a nice time and treat each other with respect, and get on with their business. And respect whatever other people have to do to contribute to the storytelling. It’s enjoyable.
I feel like we all have a picture of Freud, because of how he's been played or impersonated in the past. Often in an extravagant way.
VM: Caricatures, really.
But through your research…was there ever a fear of bringing someone to life in the wake of all of that caricature or impersonation?
VM: I have seen some Freuds. I’ve seen BBC stuff, I’ve seen some spoof stuff. John Huston’s kind of hard to find. The movie where Montgomery Clift played him without changing his eye color [Freud: The Secret Passion]. That was pretty intense, but a strange movie. Not an altogether successful portrait. Even though Montgomery Clift was a great actor—probably the founder, really, before Brando, of modern film acting. Realistic film acting, I suppose. I didn’t think that there had been a truly accurate, well-rounded portrait of him done in the movies. I didn’t think so, anyway. I haven’t seen…I was concerned with, as David was, getting it right. The reality of the times.
That’s why David and I, in this case, shared information about everything that had to do with the period. The politics in Europe at the time. The socio-political reality. The social mores. Literature, music. What was going on at the time in Vienna, Western Europe. Anything that could remotely have anything to do with it. I think Keira approached things that way also. But anyway, with David, as usual, we left no stone unturned so as to be able to arrive on the set and not waste time. He had a pretty good idea of what we were going to attempt, which allows you to relax and see what happens. You can welcome happy accidents, or twists and turns that happen with two actors or more.
Because it’s so reality based, was there still room for discovery?
VM: Something about Freud, in this portrait of him in his fifties—early fifties—I think you get the fact that he was witty. He had a sense of humor. There’s an ironic tone in some of the scenes, I think. At least that’s what we were going for, or I was going for with David’s help. And that has to do with something that I didn’t know until I did a lot of research on him. Contemporary accounts of his lectures, of the way he was as a family person, a friend. He was someone that had a large appetite for life, was robust, and quite a bit more gregarious than I'd thought. He had a really good sense of humor. He liked a good joke, a good prank.
Loved cigars.
VM: [Laughs] He loved cigars, wine, good food. He had lots of friends. And he was a pretty warmhearted person, and quite sociable. In a way I, like a lot of people, probably, pictured him as a very serious, very strict, maybe even humorless type of an old, frail, white haired man. Of course, that’s more representative physically of the way he was in the last fifteen to eighteen years of his life when he had cancer. But the period we’re dealing with is leading up to World War I—the first decade of the twentieth century. He was quite a bit more fit and had a lot more energy at the time. That was interesting to hear, and to read about. How he spoke, how he was engaging and generous as a conversationalist. That was something that we were able to put in there. Someone who was very curious about people and about life. You get that in the movie a little bit.
and David that there wasn’t a ton of rehearsals beforehand. An 'Everyone do your research, and we’re going to show up and do it' approach...
VM: No, David doesn’t really do that. He doesn’t like to do that. Which is fine. I mean, I like to rehearse, but I don’t mind not—especially with someone like him. As I said, on History of Violence, the first time around, by the time I showed up he and I had discussed so many things there wasn’t a need for it. Also, just personally, I feel like I’m on a similar wavelength with him. We get along well.
What’s your process like stepping onto a set with an actor you’ve never worked with, like Michael or Keira? How do you get going on that first day?
VM: Well, basically, whatever anybody does, in some sense...in acting I think there’s no such thing as doing it wrong. If you just let go of the idea that you’re going to fail, that’s a start right there. Whatever someone throws at me, whatever anyone does—how they say things, how they move—I just react to that. I may personally feel that maybe wasn’t as good a take as the previous one, but I don’t…you need a good moderator, a good director, like David, who doesn’t really step in and do a lot of directing unless it’s absolutely necessary. He just gently guides people whom he selects very carefully. He’s very meticulous. Very careful about the casting process. He knows how important it is. And I think he’s proved over the years that he’s quite good at it, and that he knows how to work with actors.
He’s worked with all kinds of different actors and actresses, and, generally speaking, actors tend to give—if not their best—some of their best performances when they work with him. That’s no accident. Look at Jeremy Irons, or Jeff Goldblum, or William Hurt, Ed Harris, Maria Bello, Keira, Michael. I think I’ve done some of my best things for David. Because he’s very attentive to even the minutest detail of behavior or intonation. He has a very good ear for casting and for directing actors. He understands them, and I think he likes them. He appreciates what they can do for him in terms of storytelling. How they can help him.
The not rehearsing doesn’t seem to matter with him, because you show up—you had your homework, or you assigned it to yourself, or you asked him questions and he’s given you some guidance—and you show up presumably ready. He’s very thorough in all departments. He knows it’s going to work. It’s not just the fact that he likes what he does, which is contagious. Unlike with some directors, it’s not just a task. He can’t wait to get in the editing room, and he hopes the movie is going to do well, and so forth. But he actually loves what he does. He gets the most out of each day. So you feel…you’re enthusiastic by contagion!
He also seems confident. If your director seems to know what he’s doing or she’s doing, and they give that off, they give that feeling of confidence, that inspires confidence, I find. When you have someone who is very nervous, or they’re shouting, or both, it’s not only distracting, but you worry, ‘God, are we making something terrible? What’s the point?’ I’ve certainly worked with unhinged individuals before. People who didn’t seem technically as prepared, or they were disorganized, or they were intolerant, or didn’t treat the crew right. You can still do a good job. It’s just not as much fun. As an actor, you’ve got to adapt to all kinds of personalities.
I owe you a bit of congratulations, because I know you were nominated for a Golden Globe for this role.
VM: Thank you. That was a very welcome surprise. I didn’t see it coming. In fact, since I was on my way to the theater, it wasn’t something I was paying attention to. I don’t think people pay as much attention here in Mardid as maybe they do back there. But, in any case…I say ‘surprised’ because our movie, unfortunately—although maybe that’s changing now—has not seemed…I mean, as usual with David, he gets respectable reviews, talked about, people mention him as one of our greatest living directors. And then he seems to vanish, and so do his movies. I mean, they do well. They come in on budget, or under budget. On time, or before time…the shoot. They make their money back. He goes on and makes another one. But it’s often a year later when someone sees it on DVD, or something, and they say, ‘God, that was great. Why didn’t I see that?’ I don’t know what it is. So the nomination was a bit of a surprise. It’ll be helpful to use, I hope, in the wider release.
Do awards and nominations…I assume that’s not the reason any actor takes a role—
VM: I think some people do. [Laughs] I honestly think that there are not only directors, but especially actors, who choose roles, stories, because they know that if they do a decent job with it, that’s the kind of thing that they mind get an award for. I definitely think that people do that. It doesn’t mean that they’re going to do a bad job. It’s just, well…to each his own.
Do these kinds of awards vindicate your work? Or make it feel like, ‘Oh, yeah, this was worth it. I did a good job.’
VM: It’s like someone gives you a present you didn’t expect to get. That’s basically it. Because whether David ever gets nominated for an Oscar for directing—which he should have been before, long before now—or not, doesn’t change my opinion of his movies, or having worked with him, or wanting to work with him again. It doesn’t really change anything. Obviously what it does is…it’s nice, because someone made a point of singling you out. I do appreciate that. Why wouldn’t it be pleasant? But I’m also aware of the fact that it’s a strange game, in a way. It’s a sort of satellite industry, really, this whole awards circuit, which seems to grow and grow. Every year. Maybe I’m wrong, but there seem to be more all the time. Oh, you heard so-and-so won the this-and-that, and they’re on the this-and-that list. And they’re things you’ve never heard of! But just because David’s movies have almost been invisible on those lists—except the odd, surprising mention here and there—doesn’t mean that I think more or less of them. It’s kind of a separate thing. It doesn’t mean it’s not valid. It’s great. And I also realize that at business level, that whether it’s me or Keira or Michael or David, those sort of ‘main awards,’—which I suppose are what? Best Picture, Director, Actors—those sorts of nominations help create interest, and help the distributor put the movie out there, and hopefully get people interested in going to see it. It’s a seal of approval, like from the American Dental Association!
‘It’s good! It must be good!’
VM: ‘Try that brand! At least once!’ And I’m not saying that to be cynical. I just think it’s part of our business. But it’s also nice to be mentioned or thought of, or to have someone appreciate your work in an outspoken way. It’s kind of nice.
People—we entertainment junkies—were abuzz a few days ago, because, amazingly, it was the tenth anniversary of when Fellowship of the Ring came out in theaters. It was kind of blowing all of our minds.
VM: It has really gone by quickly.
For you, looking back, do you see those movies as a kind of a treasure? Or just a respectful part of your career? Or something you wish people like me would stop asking about?
VM: No, not at all! It was an important period of my life. Years, including all the reshoots, and all of that promotion. It was four years for all of us, really. The first, main shoot, which was like shooting one big, long movie—I don’t really think of them as three movies. I think of them as one long ten-hour movie, or eleven-hour, with all the extended versions—which I learned a lot on. I worked with any number of directors, not just Peter [Jackson]. I mostly worked with all kinds of assistant directors. We had so many sets working at the time, it was kind of like a giant, hugely expensive circus. It was very interesting. Talk about the idea of an actor needing to be flexible! Working with green screens, snow, rain, mud…
The mud!
VM: You know, re-writes last minute, stunts, horses, poems, songs, mud, everything! Night, day, dawn, sunrise. It was like a workshop course in terms of working in the movies. We did just about everything. We tried just about everything as actors. Especially those actors who were working most of the time, like, say, Elijah [Wood] and myself. And so many others. It was a great period for us. Plus, I really enjoyed being in New Zealand. I like New Zealand. I owe a lot, that experience. Having been able to do, say, History of Violence and some other movies I did subsequently, has everything to do with the box office success we had. I can’t be anything but grateful to that. In many ways, I’m just fond of that time and what we went through—and the results of it—as maybe you are.
Are those big blockbuster movies something you’re interested in returning to?
VM: Sure. I have nothing against that at all. I was offered two very important big-budget roles this past year that I couldn’t do because I was already shooting a movie—an independent movie down in Argentina, which I was doing because I liked it. I thought it was a very interesting story, in which I played identical twins. And then I had this play to do. Once I give my word on something, I don’t like to go back on it…and that happens all the time in this business. You get a job—it’s either feast or famine—you get a job, and then suddenly something else comes along. ‘Oh, wow, that would have been fun.’ But you couldn’t do it.
You’re coveted.
VM: It was nice. Again, it’s like this thing of being nominated for an award. Even though I’ve been working a lot—here I am doing a very difficult play, an Ariel Dorfman play in Spain. But it’s in Spain! It’s not in LA or New York or London. It’s not in English. And working in Argentina on a movie—not in English. So I’ve been out of the loop, in a way. It’s not to still be thought of, whether it’s being offered an important part in a big studio production or being nominated for an award—I honestly don’t look at, when I’m reading a script—assuming someone’s interested in me—I really don’t look at what it is, budget-wise.
And one more, ridiculous question. The trailer for Peter’s Hobbit movie is now online. I have to ask if you have seen.
VM: No, I have to take a look at that immediately. I can’t wait to look at it! I’ll look at it as soon as we hang up.

Thursday, Nov. 17
Top Tier
Parks and Recreation
8:30 p.m. on NBC
"Smallest Park"
While Leslie works to build the smallest park in Indiana to attract tourists to Pawnee, Ron and April convince Andy to go to college. And if anything is sure to be simultaneously hilarious and frustrating, it's Andy attending college classes. Get ready for some awkwardly stifled and confused laughs.
Person of Interest
9 p.m. on CBS
"Foe"
The mystery continues on this Jonathan Nolan-helmed CBS series and this week, the procedural aspect gets a tinge of history when Reese and Finch follow a spy who uses Cold War-era relics.
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
10 p.m. on FX
"How Mac Got Fat"
I think that title is enough, but let me run through the specifics so you can understand just how exciting this episode is: we learn how Mac got fat. He tells a priest it's the gang's fault. This is comedy gold.
The League
10:30 p.m. on FX
"Thanksgiving"
Jeff Goldblum guest stars as Ruxin's (Nick Kroll) dad in a stroke of casting genius that I never thought I'd be lucky enough to see. Plus, Sarah Silverman guests as Andre's (Paul Scheer) sister who's trolling, just like her obnoxious and constantly unsuccessful sibling. This year, I'm thankful for this episode of The League.
Alternates
Community
8 p.m. on NBC
"Documentary Filmmaking: Redux"
The Dean is filming a commericial and Abed films the whole thing. I'm not sure if they can top "Set phasers to love me," but we can bet they'll try.
The Office
9 p.m. on NBC
"Gettysburg"
Andy takes the office on an inspirational trip to Gettysburg and Robert California asks them to come up with a great idea for the company.
Beavis and Butt-head
10 p.m. on MTV
"Supersize Me; Bathroom Break"
The couch-ridden duo takes on documentary filmmaking and they figure out that at work, they get paid even when they're on bathroom breaks.

The director's 1993 monster hit, starring Sam Neill and Jeff Goldblum and based on the book by Michael Crichton, spawned two sequels. However, Spielberg stepped away from the camera and acted only as executive producer on the last film, 2001's Jurassic Park III, which saw Neill return to the dinosaur franchise.
The legendary moviemaker has now confirmed work has begun on a new installment, telling Empire magazine, "The screenplay is being written right now by Mark Protosevich. I'm hoping that will come out in the next couple of years. We have a good story. We have a better story for IV than we had for III."

Cast opposite Robin Williams in Barry Levinson's political comedy "Man of the Year"

Moved to New York to pursue acting at age 17

Landed a minor role in Woody Allen's "Annie Hall"

Played Hugh Grant's perpetually single artist friend in the comedy "Nine Months"

First lead role in a feature, John Landis' "Into the Night"

Appeared in the romantic comedy "The Switch" opposite Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman

Returned to the stage opposite Kevin Spacey in the London Old Vic revival of David Mamet's "Speed-the-Plow"

Co-starred with Will Smith in Roland Emmerich's "Independece Day"

Breakthrough role in David Cronenberg's "The Fly"; also co-starred Davis

Cast as one of Rachel Berry's (Lea Michele) dads on Fox's "Glee"

Lent his voice to the animated feature "The Prince of Egypt"

Joined an ensemble cast in Lawrence Kasdan's "The Big Chill"

Cast as Karen's old nemesis and Grace's new love interest on NBC's "Will & Grace"; garnered an Emmy nomination

Appeared with Selma Hayek and Steve Zahn in the comedy "Chain of Fools"

Appeared in the comedy feature "Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie"

Appeared off-Broadway in "El Grande de Coca-Cola"

Summary

Despite having starred in some of the biggest blockbuster films of all time, actor Jeff Goldblum had often opted to portray offbeat characters in limited release indies. After breaking in as a drug-addled thug in "Death Wish" (1974), Goldblum spent several years looking for that one breakthrough role that would propel his career to the next level. That role came when he played a seedy magazine journalist who reconnects with his college friends during a funeral in "The Big Chill" (1983). But his biggest moment arrived with a star-making leading role in "The Fly" (1986), which earned him widespread critical plaudits. Though he spent the next several years in some rather forgettable features, Goldblum reached new heights as an unorthodox scientist in the hit action film "Jurassic Park" (1993). Three years later, he starred in one of the biggest box office draws of all time, "Independence Day" (1996), which solidified his status as one of Hollywood's top stars. While he maintained a prolific output of film and television over the next two decades, Goldblum took a step back to concentrate on lower-profile independents like "Igby Goes Down" (2002) - not at all unusual for the iconoclastic performer.

Wreford was featured in Goldblum's documentary "Pittsburgh" (2006); Briefly engaged; No longer together

Education

Name

Carnegie Mellon University

The Neigborhood Playhouse

Taylor Allderdice High School

Notes

Goldblum taught at Playhouse West in California.

He was a juror at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival.

Goldblum was in a jazz band called The Mildred Snitzer Orchestra with fellow actor Peter Weller.

In September 2006, it was announced that Goldblum was one of the founding members of a new theater company in New York called The Fire Dept.

In May 2012, Goldblum was granted a temporary restraining order against a woman he claimed had been stalking him since 2001. The actor originally filed a restraining order in 2010 against Linda Ransom, whom Goldblum alleged constantly followed him in public, showed up at his house uninvited, and appeared on multiple occasions at his stage performances in NYC and L.A.